Page 4219 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

Mr Seselja said in his speech that he supported good policy and doing proper costings. That is what my motion calls for. Yet Mr Seselja has voted it down and has put in some self-congratulatory statement which achieves nothing.

We intended this to be a motion that we hoped would be a positive one that all parties could agree on—obviously this was a little too much to expect—so that we could have a positive statement from the Assembly to the federal government, and to federal bodies such as Infrastructure Australia, to encourage this sort of investment in the ACT. I did not think this would be a squabble, as Mr Seselja labelled it, but what has happened is that Mr Corbell and Mr Seselja have done a great job of turning it into that.

This might be something that the Canberra community might want to think about. Are the Liberal and Labor parties actually interested in progressing transport in the ACT and working with the Greens and the community to achieve this, which is what this motion would have done today? It would appear to date, from the response from both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, that the answer to that question is no.

Question put:

That Mr Seselja’s amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video